Warinussy on importance of ILWP meeting in August
[Readers please note that TAPOL decided not to waste time on the item
that appeared in Bintang Papua on 4 August because of its many
inaccuracies. See below. We guessed to the time that this was the result
of TNI intervention, to block accurate reporting about an important
event for Papua in the UK. Readers should also note that the three-hour
meeting in Oxford on 2 August is constantly being reported in the
Indonesian press as a KTT, Konferensi Tingkat Tinggi, a Summit
Conference, an expression normally reserved for meetings of heads of
state, which of course was not appropriate for the meeting held in
Oxford, which was a meeting attended by academics and activists. ]
———————————————-
Bintang Papua, 5 August 2011
Yan Christian Warinussy, a human rights activist and law practitioner,
has expressed his appreciation of the demonstrations organised by Papuan
activists in Sorong, Manokwari, Jayapura and Biak which highlighted the
principle of peace.
He said it was important for all organisations, especially the Dewan
Adat Papua (Papuan Customary Council), to gather together documents and
visual material about the ILWP conference that was held in the UK in
August. These documents need to be analysed and circulated widely to
the Papuan people and district governments, including the security
forces of the Indonesian armed forces and police, to ensure that
everyone has the same understanding about these activities as well as
their impacts on the future of the Papuan people.
‘Whether or not the idea of a referendum has the support of many
components is a matter for the future because it needs a response from
many groups, including those who are for and those who are against the
idea of self-determination for the Papuan people.
‘We need to remember that the right to self-determination is a right
for all the people on earth, including the indigenous Papuan people, as
stipulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.’ Warinussy also
said that the achievements of the Papuan people in organising the Papuan
Peace Conference on 5 – 7 July this year was an extraordinarily
important event which no one had ever predicted. It was at this peace
conference that all the problems that the Papuan people have been
wrestling with for the past ten years were studied and analysed by
various groups and reported on scientifically. There were thoroughgoing
discussions which led to conclusions and recommendations that were
drawn up by representatives of the Papuan people who participated in the
conference.
The Dewan Adat Papua (Papuan Customary Council ) should speedily
consolidate their networks in the Land of Papua and take action
together with all components of the Papuan people to prepare concrete
measures for the achievement of a Papua-Indonesia dialogue in 2011.
Meanwhile, a news item published by Bintang Papua the headline of which
was ‘ILWP conference failed to reach agreement on its agenda’ described
it as ‘breaking news from the BBC but it was of questionable origin.
According to the editor of Bintang Papua, they realised that they had
not been careful enough in confirming that the BBC was the source of the
item; as a result, on the following day action was taken against the
person who had contributed the item, according to a statement by the
Bintang Papua editor.
According to the editor-in-chief of Bintang Papua, Walhamri Wahid, the
contributor admitted that the source of the item was an SMS which was
widely circulated by a senior officer of the Cenderawasih military
command, based on an SMS from a former OPM member who subsequently
defected and who was in London when the conference was taking place.
The SMS commenced with the words BREAKING NEWS BBC LONDON (written in
capital letters) which was sent by Frans Albert Joku in a report to a
senior officer at the Cenderawasih military command which was then
forwarded to Bintang Papua. ‘We did not clarify where the information
had come from, there was no check and counter check on its accuracy and
it was published as if it had been sent by BBC-London, said Walhamri
Wahid.
Bintang Papua abides by the Journalists’ Code of Ethics but on that
occasion, the journalist was in a race against time, facing a deadline
and relied solely on the journalist who had sent the item from the
field. ‘Our conclusion for the time being is that this news item was
untruthful, using another news agency as the source.’ It was decided on
the following day that they would confirm (this mistake) and apologise
if it turned out to be true that this report was not from the BBC. We
have received no denial from the BBC. ‘When I was later browsing on the
internet, I found no such breaking news in any of the reports from the
BBC, said the editor in chief.
At the time it was early in the morning, at 2am on 3 August, and this
was a news item that people in Papua were eagerly awaiting. This was
seen as an important day when the conference was adopting decisions
about the future of the Papuan people. According to the Bintang Papua
editor, their journalist (in the UK) was having difficulty reporting the
matter from the location of the meeting, and the impression was that it
was deliberately blocked so as to ensure that the news would not be
circulated.
The rest of this article regurgitates the erroneous information that was
contained in the BP report on 4 August.
[Reminder: Readers of this list may recall that we posted the following
statement on 4 August:
Note: The report in Bintang Papua today about the ILWP meeting in
Oxford on 2 August was so full of inaccuracies that it was a waste of
time to translate it. Suffice it to say that it described the meeting
as ‘a failure’.
Carmel Budiardjo, TAPOL
The legal road for West Papua: a dead-end?
The legal road for West Papua: a dead-end?
Jason MacLeod[1] and Brian Martin[2]
Legal actions might assist the West Papuan struggle for freedom, but this approach is extremely difficult and entails significant risks. Using the courts plays to the opponents’ strengths: it may not do much to erode Indonesian rule in West Papua, and risks reinforcing it. Priority needs to be put on nonviolent strategies involving large numbers of ordinary people, particularly inside West Papua.
Risks of a legal strategy
Firstly, using legal channels requires considerable money and resources and thus restricts involvement by ordinary people. Even with high profile pro-bono support, any legal case will be extremely expensive. Although West Papua is rich in natural resources, the movement is short on cash. The Indonesian government will do all it can to delay and derail the case going to court, both in Indonesia and internationally. If the case does make its way to the courts, the Indonesian government will spare no expense in fighting it. Legal battles are not won solely by money, but it definitely helps. In court, the movement will be fighting an opponent with more money and resources.
Secondly, a legal strategy favours the powerful. In terms of access to people of influence on the world stage, the Indonesian government has more power than the movement. Government power is not the only kind of power operating, but it is worth factoring the Indonesian government’s considerable international influence into an assessment of whether to pursue legal actions or how such a strategy might be strengthened.
Thirdly, there are technical legal issues. There is a risk that the case might never be heard simply because the court accepts objections such as that the plaintiffs are mischievous and or the court does not have jurisdiction. Even if the case does get to an international court there is no guarantee the challenge will be successful. A failure to win the case, even on technical grounds, could undermine the cause for self-determination by giving a legal stamp of approval to the Act of Free Choice.
Fourthly, even if the case is successful, there is no guarantee of any subsequent political change. This is the lesson from many other struggles relying on courts and official bodies.
Consider the United Nations. There have been numerous resolutions by the UN General Assembly and Human Rights Commission condemning the Indonesian government’s invasion of East Timor and the subsequent human rights violations committed under the occupation. All were ignored by the Indonesian government, some for decades.
In the 1990s, the International Court of Justice was asked to rule on the legality of nuclear weapons under international law. The court gave an opinion, some parts of which supported the goals of anti-nuclear campaigners. However, no government with nuclear weapons took any substantial action, such as moving to disarm, in response to the court opinions.
The situation is similar in West Papua. The Indonesian government’s occupation is clearly illegal, as Saltford[3] and Drooglever[4] have shown convincingly. The Indonesian Government will be unlikely to give up its rule of West Papua just because an international court rules the occupation illegal.
Finally, a legal strategy could act as a dampener on dissent inside West Papua. It could reinforce the belief that Papuans themselves don’t have to actively struggle for their own liberation, because powerful outsiders will save them.
Courts are examples of “official channels” – and they do not work well when dealing with powerful perpetrators, such as governments. People often believe that official channels provide justice, yet they heavily favour those with more money and power. Official channels are usually very slow, can be expensive, and restrict opportunities for non-experts to participate. Issues are taken out of the public domain and moved it to more restrictive arenas, such as courts, that are usually less sympathetic. Even when official channels come up with good recommendations, governments often do not act on them.[5]
The case of West Papua is essentially about power politics and vested economic interests. Therefore, winning in the court of public opinion (in other words building a powerful social movement) and raising the political and economic costs of the Indonesian government’s continued occupation will be more decisive than a legal victory. However, the two strategies could be complementary.
Strengthening a legal case through building a people’s movement
In the past 25 years, international boundaries have been dramatically redrawn and numerous countries have become independent. On 9 July 2011, South Sudan became the world’s newest state. Before that Kosovo and East Timor became independent. During the late 1980s and early 1990s several republics of the former Soviet Union also became independent. The overwhelming majority – with the exception of Romania – did so through nonviolent means. Some, like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, won national liberation even though half their population was made up of Russian immigrants. What was decisive about all these movements was that they undermined the occupiers’ legitimacy and disrupted their rule. That outcome can be achieved through violent or nonviolent action.
By nonviolent action we mean sustained, unarmed and extra-parliamentary collective action in the pursuit of political and social goals. Nonviolent action has been used in dozens of countries. Also called people power or civil resistance, nonviolent campaigns have ousted dictators, resisted coups and been effective in challenging racism, exploitation and other injustices.[6]
The history of the international movement against nuclear weapons shows that governments have been most constrained when protest is vigorous. When protest has waned, military races have accelerated.[7]
Recent research into self-determination struggles waged between 1900 and 2006 shows that struggles for independence or national liberation and territory are very difficult to win, even more difficult than removing a dictator like Suharto or Mubarak. Chenoweth and Stephan compared whether armed or nonviolent struggle was more likely to produce self-determination outcomes (like independence). They found that violent and nonviolent struggles had roughly equal chances of succeeding – about 25%.[8]
With equal odds of success, nonviolent struggle is definitely more desirable: it causes less loss of life, allows for greater participation of ordinary people, and lays the basis for a free and open society after independence. In contrast armed struggle results in higher casualties, less participation and a greater likelihood of post-independence repression. Mixing armed and nonviolent struggle tends to contaminate the gains won by nonviolent struggle.
So what helps these movements succeed? Specifically, what might improve the prospects of the West Papuan freedom movement? Here are some possibilities that could be part of a nonviolent struggle.
- Make the violence of the Indonesian government and the nonviolent resistance of the Papuans visible to transnational networks that mobilise on behalf of Papuans.
- Expose the failure of governance in West Papua by withdrawing support for, or co-opting, state institutions like the Majelis Rakyat Papua (MRP), Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Papua (DPRP – the two Provincial parliaments in Papua Province and Papua Barat Province), local parliaments (DPRD – Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah) and the civil service.
- Use nonviolent sanctions to impose economic and reputational costs on transnational corporations in West Papua.
- Take the struggle to mainstream Indonesia and the societies of the Indonesian government’s elite allies, for example Australian and British governments and corporations.
- Coordinate with transnational activist networks to alter the Indonesian government’s willingness to maintain the occupation and to affect its capability to do so.
When it comes to challenging the Indonesian government’s legitimacy in West Papua, it is also vitally important that local Papuan and transnational solidarity movements continue to expose not only the historical denial of self-determination but also the ongoing failure of governance. This includes collecting and publicising the testimonies of surviving participants in the Act of Free Choice, participating in strikes, boycotts, noncooperation with Special Autonomy, establishing autonomous cultural, religious, economic and political institutions and other forms of mass based nonviolent challenges to Indonesian rule. Student and youth groups in particular have taken many initiatives; other groups can become more active, including churches, members of the MRP, members of the Papuan civil service, teachers, health workers, Papuan workers in resource extractive industries – and people like those gathered here today.
A legal strategy has the potential to strengthen the case that Indonesian rule in West Papua is totally illegitimate, but only if, at the same time, Papuans themselves are actively refusing to cooperate with, and nonviolently disrupting, Indonesian rule in West Papua. Faced with an adverse legal opinion, but without sustained and widespread protest, the Indonesian government will simply and legitimately point out that Papuans are participating in elections, that local Papuan politicians are in the positions of Governor and Bupati, that the MRP, provincial and local parliaments represent Papuan interests, and that there is a large Papuan civil service running the country.
A legal strategy without a powerful people’s movement is like a bird of paradise with only one wing. It looks appealing but it won’t fly.
[1] Solidarity activist, civil resistance educator and doctoral candidate at the School of Politics and International Studies at the University of Queensland.
[2] Professor of Social Sciences, University of Wollongong, Australia, http://www.bmartin.cc/.
[3] John Saltford, The United Nations and the Indonesian Takeover of West Papua, 1962-1969 : The Anatomy of a Betrayal: London: Routledge (2003)
[4] Pieter Drooglever, An Act of Free Choice: Decolonisation and the Right to Self-Determination in West Papua, Oxford: Oneworld Publications (2009)
[5] Brian Martin, Justice Ignited: The Dynamics of Backfire, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield (2007); “Backfire materials,” http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/backfire.html.
[6] Kurt Schock, Unarmed Insurrections: People Power in Nondemocracies, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press (2005); Gene Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Boston: Porter Sargent (1973); Adam Roberts and Timothy Garton-Ash, Civil Resistance and Power Politics: The Experiment of Nonviolent Action from Gandhi to the Present, Oxford: Oxford University Press (2009).
[7] Lawrence S. Wittner, The Struggle against the Bomb (3 volumes), Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1993–2003).
[8] Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict, New York, NY: Columbia University Press (2011).
Related articles
- West Papua: the road to freedom? (westpapuamedia.info)
- West Papua Report August 2011 (westpapuamedia.info)
- House of Lords question on West Papua (westpapuamedia.info)
- Sorry: Indon Army Backs Down Over Threats (westpapuamedia.info)
- BBC: US Firm Freeport Struggles To Escape Its Past In Papua (westpapuamedia.info)
Differing responses to ILWP meeting on 2 August
Bintang Papua, 27 July, 2011
Abridged in translation by TAPOL
Jayapura: The news that the International Lawyers for West Papua is to hold a meeting in the UK on 2 August has led to a variety of responses.On the one hand, there are those who think this will be of no positive benefit for Papua.
The Central Presidium of the National Struggle of the Papuan People regards this as nothing more than ‘romanticism of history’. This was the view of the organisation’s chairman, Arkilaus Baho, speaking at a press conference. He was of the opinion that it would be more useful to have talks between the Indonesian government and the TPN/OPM like the talks that were held some time ago held with GAM about Aceh. He expressed the view that both the TPN (the armed wing of the OPM) and the Indonesian government would be prepared to hold talks. ”These talks could be held before the end of 2011,’ he said.
But Usama Usman Jogobi , speaking at another press conference together with his colleagues, said that he enthusiastically supports the holding of this conference.Usama is the co-ordinator of SDHRP, Democratic Solidarity and Human Rights of the Papuan people. He hoped very much that all sections of the Papuan people would support this meeting. ‘We support it whole-heartedly,’ he said.’We very much hope that the decisions taken at the conference will contribute towards resolving the continuing conflicts in Papua,’
Mako Tabuni, chairman of the National Committee of West Papua (KNPB) also expressed support for the event. He went further, saying that his organisation was planning to organise a peaceful demonstration outside the DPRP head office on 2 August. ‘I have received an acknowledgement (to my request) from the police about this event. ‘I am quite quite certain that this peaceful demonstration will take place,’ he said.
Related articles
- ‘West Papua – The Road to Freedom’ conference, Oxford, UK, Aug 2 (westpapuamedia.info)
- The hope for Papua’s freedom: ‘Go International’ (westpapuamedia.info)
- Sorry: Indon Army Backs Down Over Threats (westpapuamedia.info)
- Freeport’s Ippkh Does Not Benefit Papuan People (westpapuamedia.info)
- Indonesian Army shoot mother and 3 children in “crossfire” in Kalome, West Papua, as offensive escalates (westpapuamedia.info)
House of Lords question on West Papua
[TRANSCRIPT]
House of Lords, Oral Question, 19 July 2011
Indonesia: West Papua
Question
2.36 pm
Asked By Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage
the government of Indonesia to enter into dialogue with representative
leaders of the West Papuan opposition.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of
Guildford): My Lords, the United Kingdom has long encouraged the use of
constructive dialogue to resolve differences between the Government of
Indonesia and the credible representatives of the Papuan and West Papuan
people. We welcome the Papuan peace conference held in Jayapura from 5
to 7 July, which included discussions between Indonesian government
Ministers and Papuan community leaders addressing political differences
over regional governance and possible avenues for further dialogue.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am
particularly glad that he has drawn the attention of the House to the
recent peace conference, when more than 500 representatives of different
aspects of West Papuan society gathered in order to call for serious
negotiations with the Indonesian Government and to appoint five people
to negotiate on behalf of the West Papuan people. Will the Minister ask
the Indonesian Government to respond to this initiative?
Lord Howell of Guildford: I am grateful to the noble and right reverend
Lord for his question. We are discussing these matters with the
Indonesian Government. We know they are committed to trying to carry
this process forward. It is a matter of them putting their money where
their mouth is because Papua and West Papua receive by far the largest
chunk of the regional funds from the central government. They want to
carry this forward. I think the message of the noble
19 July 2011 : Column 1192
and right reverend Lord is the correct one and we shall continue to
encourage a constructive dialogue, as I have described.
Lord Avebury: Considering that, after many years of struggle and
destruction of the economic potential, the Government of Indonesia came
to an agreement with the people of Aceh on devolution, will the Foreign
Office ask Jakarta to refrain from arresting and imprisoning dozens of
people in West Papua for so-called subversion and at least have
discussions with the OPM to see how the benefits of mineral
exploitation, including BP’s LNG project in Bintuni Bay, could be more
widely shared with the people?
Lord Howell of Guildford: On my noble friend’s final point, my
understanding is that not only BP but Rio Tinto and other major
investors are determined to work out ways in which the benefits can
indeed be shared more widely with the people. My noble friend is
absolutely right about that. We have raised queries about some of the
arrests-there was one over displaying the wrong flag or something like
that-and the size of the sentences seemed disproportionate. We are aware
of these worries and we shall continue to raise them with the Government.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that
Indonesian policy in West Papua and Papua-I declare an interest as a
regular business visitor there for eight years between 2001 and 2009-is
a rather disturbing mixture of generosity-as the noble Lord has
explained, those provinces are the biggest aid recipients of transfers
of resources within Indonesia-and repression? It must surely be in the
interest of the Indonesian Government to strengthen that generous strand
and to reduce the repression and, above all, to allow the international
press free access to Papua and West Papua so that they can see what is
really going on.
Lord Howell of Guildford: The noble Lord is absolutely right: it is not
only in the interests of Indonesia-wherever there is repression, it is
not the right way forward-but in our national interest as well. It may
seem far away, but the reality is that we are talking about an area
mid-way between the Pacific rim and the Indian Ocean, where all the
world’s growth, dynamism and accumulation of wealth and influence will
be. It is very important that we are constructively and helpfully
involved there.
The matter of journalists’ access to Papua and West Papua was discussed
at the EU human rights partnership meeting with the Indonesians in
Indonesia on 5 May. It is one that we continue to raise, because clearly
access for balanced reporting would be of benefit to the situation.
Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, in terms of human rights, it is
normally best for representations to be made on behalf of the European
Union as a whole so that individual countries are not picked off. What
is the position here? Have there been representations by the European
Union? Are we fully behind them?
19 July 2011 : Column 1193
Lord Howell of Guildford: Yes. I described in my answer to the previous
question that on 5 May there was an EU meeting that discussed a number
of aspects of repression, including a matter that the noble Lord, Lord
Avebury, quite often and rightly raises-the question of the apparent
persecution of, and violence against, the Ahmadiyya community and other
Christian communities. All these matters are indeed discussed and were
discussed at that very helpful forum between the European Union and the
Indonesian Government on 5 May.
Lord Liddle: The whole House will welcome the progress-uneven
progress-being made on human rights in West Papua, and on human rights
in the rest of Indonesia, and will welcome Indonesia’s joining of the UN
Human Rights Council, but what positive progress is being made under the
EU-Indonesia dialogue? What active support are the British Government
giving, particularly in terms of ministerial visits such as that of Mr
Jeremy Browne last year to Indonesia? How do the Government balance
their proper concern for human rights with their present emphasis on
expanding UK trade in emerging markets such as Indonesia?
Lord Howell of Guildford: The answer to the noble Lord’s general
question is that we do balance. In many cases, one would argue that the
two go together. If we can get expanded commercial and economic
activity, effective inward investment and the expansion of trade, this
will pave the way for a more open society and a more effective policing
of human rights.
Results are a bit difficult to measure. All that can be said is that
there is a human rights dialogue between the European Union and
Indonesia. We support it fully. Our evidence in this increasingly
transparent world is: first, that it is getting more difficult for any
country that wishes to oppose and repress human rights to do so;
secondly, that we intend to try to make it more difficult for them to do
so; and thirdly, that the Indonesian state, whose territorial integrity
we fully support, is anxious to carry forward and sensibly settle this
and other human rights issues in a good and constructive way.
‘West Papua – The Road to Freedom’ conference, Oxford, UK, Aug 2
from International Lawyers for West Papua
Next Tuesday 2nd August, international lawyers, politicians, tribal leaders, a UN committee member & a witness to the 1969 Act of Free Choice will gather for the Road To Freedom conference in Oxford, UK.
Chaired by British MP Andrew Smith, the conference will present the strongest case to date that the people of West Papua have the right to self-determination under international law.
People across West Papua will be following the conference and will use its outcomes to further their campaign for freedom.
List of speakers include:
- Andrew Smith – British politician
- Jennifer Robinson – International human rights lawyer
- Powes Parkop – Governor of Port Moresby and the National Capital District, PNG
- Benny Wenda – West Papua independence leader, UK
- Frances Raday – Expert Member of the UN Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women
- John Saltford - Expert on the 1969 Act of Free Choice
- Clement Ronawery – Witness to the 1969 Act of Free Choice
- Ralph Regenvanu – Vanuatu Justice Minister
- Charles Foster – co-founder of the International Lawyers for West Papua
As a sign of support for the conference and in solidarity with the Papuan peoples struggle for freedom, the Mayor of Oxford has agreed to fly the Morning Star flag above Oxford Town Hall on the day of the conference.
The conference is taking place at Oxford University’s East School of the Examination Schools, 75-81 High Street, Oxford, OX1 4BG. It will commence at 2pm
Those wishing to attend are required to register by emailing conference@ilwp.org
Related articles
- Conference: West Papua – The Road to Freedom (anaksisahbom.wordpress.com)
- Sorry: Indon Army Backs Down Over Threats (westpapuamedia.info)
- AFP: Languages of Papua Vanish Without a Whisper (westpapuamedia.info)
- Photo News: Thousands of people of West Papua Rally to Demand Referendum (westpapuamedia.info)
- Indonesian Army: Gunmen Kill Indonesia Soldier in Papua (westpapuamedia.info)
The hope for Papua’s freedom: ‘Go International’
Apologies for delay in posting
Tuesday, 03 May 2011 19:58
Editor : Markus
Tabloid JUBI — The struggle of the native people of Papua for freedom from all the evils they have suffered since their annexation into the Unitary Republic of Indonesia on 3rd May 1963, still echo to this day, not only on the local and national scene, but already internationally.
“At this time, our hopes for freedom for the People of West Papua depend on the support of the world. Privately and through our own organisations we are struggling, but now we have the help and sympathy of all the countries of the world,” said the Head of the National Committee of West Papua, Mako Tabuni, on Tuesday 3rd May 2011.
Support from the international world is growing and becoming stronger,for example from Israel. This is a long campaign, and this is the way to do it – by gaining friends. “The problems of West Papua are also world problems, and Indonesia has to open itself up to recognise the truths of its history, of what happened some decades ago,” said Mako.
The formation of two bodies called International Lawyers for West Papua (ILWP) and International Parliamentarians for West Papua (IPWP), said Mako, came about as a result of the world’s notice and support for West Papua. ‘We are being well supported by the ILWP and the IPWP, which are fighting for the fate of West Papua.”
He said this as on the day after Monday 2nd May, when thousands of people had marched peacefully to assemble at the Post Office in Abepura, Jayapura.
The KNPB (National Committee) had emphasised several important points which are tied to our history, status and the sad fate of the people of Papua.
Firstly, the people of West Papua have not, did not nor ever will give their consent to join the Unitary Republic of Indonesia (NKRI) to become a part of their republic, West Papua.
Secondly, the process of making West Papua part of the NKRI, beginning in 1963 and finishing in 1969, organised jointly by Indonesia, United States of America, the Netherlands and the United Nations, was engineered as a false process, not following the Principles of international justice. The owners of the area of West Papua were never involved in the process, and the international talks and arrangements took no account of their wishes.
Thirdly, the agreement called “The New York Agreement” was not supervised by the whole of the United Nations, resulting in the “referendum” of 1969, where the people of West Papua were not given their political right to vote on the basis of “one person, one vote”; this “vote” consisted of only 1025 people chosen by Indonesia to “represent” West Papua. This is a violation against the political rights of the people of West Papua.
Fourthly, NKRI has killed and destroyed many of the native citizens of West Papua since they began their DOM (Local Military Operation) to take up possession of the land of West Papua in 1963.
Fifthly, NKRI has pursued, intimidated, terrorised and killed many of the citizens of WP since this operation began.
Sixthly, Special Autonomy was offered as a solution to these problems. This policy was never really implemented as promised and published as policy by Indonesia.
Seventh, the only thing which is supporting Special Autonomy, which is the one thing the NKRI is offering, is part of their colonisation of Papua which nullifies the political rights of the native people of Papua, because the foremost problem for them is their right to determine their own future for themselves, which has been suppressed and undermined by the unilateral annexation of Papua through the so-called Act of Free Choice of 1969.
“We do not recognise the right of the Government of Indonesia, and all the institutions of that country, to stand in the nation of West Papua,” said Mako Tabuni, reading from a petition which had been signed by the whole assembly which had attended the march.
What we, the KNPB, are demanding is, firstly: that Indonesia stop all political manoeuvres using the Special Autonomy, formation of the MRP and the UP$B program in the land of West Papua.
Secondly, Indonesia and West Papua be the subject of an international legal process so that the political status of West Papua can be brought to the table at the International Cpurt, to determine a just policy about the validity of Indonesia’s annexation of the land of West Papua, and a justice for the people of West Papua.
Thirdly, in order to determine the will of the people of West Papua, a Referendum be held in a democratic way by the United Nations, to find a final solution to the political conflict in West Papua.
To find a framework to support this process to end the problems in West Papua via an international legal and political process, the KNPB puts forward the name of Ms. Melinda Janki as Head of the ILWP, Mr. Charles Foster and all the members of the ILWP.
Also, Mr. Andrew Smith as Head of the IPWP, Mr. Caroline Lucas together with all members of the IPWP to support the political process to bring the matter before an internasional forum, together with the support of a free Papua. Also, the Government of the Republic of Vanuatu, as a member of the United Nations, also gives a similar mandate to determine the legal status of West Papua through an international legal process at the International Court of Justice.
At the same time, the Spokesperson of the International KNPB, Victor Yeimo, can be a representative and coordinator to express the hopes and expectations of the people of West Papua. For this to happen, we need to form a representative body: a National Council of West Papua.
“It is not just anyone, it is the people of Papua alone who can bring about freedom. So, let us, the people of this land, come together and work and struggle,” said Yeimo.
About twenty Papuan representatives who addressed the assembly signed a petition before the demonstration ended at about 6 pm.
(Markus)
West Papua is Indonesia’s Palestine.
West Papua is Indonesia’s Palestine.
Opinion
August 16, 2010
John Ondawame is right. West Papua is on the verge of a “total intifada” (Ben Bohane, ‘West Papua warns of intifada against Jakarta’, Sydney Morning Herald, August 7 2010). Intifada means to “shake off” in Arabic. It has become a word used to describe the desire by Palestinians to free themselves from foreign occupation. The question is what kind of intifada is and will take place in West Papua? Will it be like the recent Palestinian intifada, led by a resurgent Hamas? An uprising of fury waged through political terror. Or will it be like the 1987 Palestinian intifada, a largely unarmed insurrection?
West Papua is the Indonesia’s Palestine. Papuans consider that their land has been occupied without their consent. Freedom of expression is prohibited, foreign journalists banned, migrants continue to pour into the country, and the police and military keep a repressive lid on boiling Papuan anger. It is also a modern day Avatar. Papuans are defending their land form the exploitative practices of resource extractive industries. For the Papuans theirs is a struggle for survival.
However, unlike Palestine and the film Avatar, resistance to the Indonesian government’s rule has overwhelmingly been through civilian based movements. Only last month, for instance, 20,000 plus people – students, women, young people, religious leaders, NGO activists, traditional chiefs, farmers and even members of the Majelis Rakyat Papua, West Papua’s indigenous senate – all converged on the capital and occupied the provincial parliament for two days to pressure the Papuan political elite to hand back Special Autonomy, a package or policy, finance, and legislation designed to give Papuans a measure of self-rule. After ten years of broken promises and still born hopes, Papuans concluded Special Autonomy had failed. It is a news story that should have been covered by every major media outlet. But here in Australia we heard next to nothing.
Now, as Bohane writes, Papuans are feeling abandoned by their Melanesian kin. At the recent Pacific Island Forum, Vanuatu tried to raise the West Papua issue but Papua New Guinea’s political leaders blocked the discussion. Again. The Australia and New Zealand governments also failed to raise their voice for on behalf of Papuan rights. Again.
Some Papuan leaders are now talking about making the territory ungovernable through mass civilian based non-cooperation with Jakarta. How long civil resistance continues depends not only on the tactical and strategic choices made by Papuan leaders. In part it also depends on whether solidarity movements in the region, including inside Indonesia, can raise the political and economic costs so that political leaders and foreign companies feel compelled to agree to what Papuans have been demanding for years: political dialogue with Jakarta and the international community about their grievances.
Will the international community support the Papuan’s right to rise up for freedom? Or will they send the same message they sent to the Kosovo Albanians? That international intervention and the goal of independence will only come about when there is armed struggle and mass violence. Surely we can all do better than that.
Jason MacLeod
(The writer lectures in political science at the University of Queensland.)
Thousands call for Referendum at grave of slain West Papuan hero
Photos courtesy of Yasons Sambon, KNPB
Sentani, West Papua, Monday August 2 2010 (West Papua Media Alerts)
Reports have been filtering from Sentani that over five thousand people have been gathering at the grave of slain West Papuan independence hero Chief Dorotheys (Theys) Eluay, continuing the unprecedented mass mobilisations calling for a return of Special Autonomy to Jakarta, and for internationally mediated dialogue and a referendum to determine West Papua’s future.
This rally was called by KNPB (West Papua National Committee) with support from West Papua National Authority, Dewan Adat Papua, students and youth.
The rally was called to commemorate the anniversary of the fraudulent conduct of the Act of Free Choice in 1969, and to remind the international community that West Papuan people still contest Indonesian occupation, human rights and environmental abuses, corruption and impunity. The organisers of the demonstrations have asserted that rolling mobilisations will be increasing to demand a review of the Act of Free Choice until its 41st anniversary on August 15.
Today’s gathering at Sentani remained peaceful, although large numbers of security forces, 3 trucks of heavily armed anti-terror Dalmas paramilitary police, over 100 armed plain clothes intelligence agents, and water cannon were in attendance. Despite intimidation from Indonesian security forces, the mass gathering maintained peaceful discipline and listened to speeches and music.
More demonstrations will be held tomorrow as the special sessions of the DPRP will be held in Jayapura to discuss the final handback of the failed Special Autonomy package to Jakarta, Tens Thousands of people are expected to gather in the morning in a mass mobilisation called by ForDem (Forum Demokratik Rakyat Papua / Democratic Forum of Papuan
People). Security forces are expected to prevent people from gathering, so this is a situation that will need monitoring to ensure restraint by Indonesian Police and military.
Nick Chesterfield @West Papua Media Alerts
Jayapura 02/08/2010, ratusan masa aksi yang diakomodir oleh komite nasional Papua Barat (KNPB), mengakomodir seluruh komponen masyarakat papua dan semu organ-organ pergerakan, dan semu tokoh-tokoh. Masa berkumpul di beberapa titik kumpul menuju ke sasaran aksi mimbar politik bebas di pemekaman pahlawan Theys Eluai Sentani Jayapura Papua.
Acara tersebut mulai pada pukul: 12 :15 wpb, berlangsung mulai dengan orasi-orasi dari masing-masing organ dan juga pelaku PEPERA 1969 menjelaskan tentang pelaksanaan PEPERA pada masa lalu, namun semua menyatakan tidak sah karena Indonesia Amerika dan PBB telah melanggar hukum internasional dan tidak laksanakan PEPERA 1969 sesui dengan prinsip-prinsip hokum internasional yaitu (one people one soul).
Pelaku Sejarah Fred Suebu menjelaskan bahwa;
-Pada perjanjian New York orang Papua tidak ikut tanda tangan, maka dinyatakan PEPERA 1969 adalah tidak sah dan cacat hukum dan moral.
- dan saya minta kepada PBB segera lakukan Referendum bagi bangsa Papua Barat .
Dalam orasinya Forkorus Yoesiebu bahwa;
- Kita orang Papua barsatu menuntut kedaulatan dan gugat aneksasi.
- Pertanyaan; apakah rakyat setuju besok bentuk Pemerintahan Negara Papua Barat?
- Rakyat menyatakan setuju.
- Aneksasi PEPERA 1969 harus kugat dan kami rakyat bangsa Papua Barat menembalikan PEPERA 1969 ke PBB.
- Amerika, Belanda, Indonesia dan PBB tidak menghargai hak orang Papua , maka kami menuntut kugat aneksasi.
Demikian Yang mana komite nasional papua barat telah diadakan mimbar bebas politik dalam ranggga mengembalikan anekesasi PEPERA 1969 ke pangguan PBB, bentuk mayat peti PEPEPRA 1969 dan beberapa surat piagam telah kembalikan dan rakyat bangsa Papua Barat Menuntut Referendum untuk pepentuan nasib sendiri bagi bangsa papua barat. Demikian guna menggukat PEPERA 1969 di tingkat Internasional yaitu pengadilan Internasional (ICJ) melalui lembaga diplomat papua yang ada yaitu (ILWP).
Demikian laporan kami Jayapura Papua barat dan atas kerjasama yang baik kami sampaikan banyak terimaksih.
By yasons sambom
West Papua Human Rights Activist
International Lawyers for West Papua (ILWP) letter to the Pacific Islands Forum
Mr Tuiloma Neroni Slade
The Secretary General Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat
Private Mail Bag Suva FIJI
Dear Secretary General,
The Leaders Vision for the Pacific Islands Forum states that:
“We seek a Pacific region that is respected for the quality of its governance, the sustainable management of its resources, the full
observance of democratic values and for its defence and promotion of human rights.”
In view of these important objectives, the International Lawyers for West Papua would like to draw your attention to the continuing illegal situation in West Papua, the former Netherlands New Guinea.
West Papuan people preparing for fresh wave of independence protests demanding referendum
Bintang Papua
The chairman of the KNPB, the National Committee of West Papua, Buchtar Tabuni has told the press that his organisation is preparing to consolidate and mobilise large numbers of people to occupy town centres across West Papua to draw international attention to the cause and, making the following demands:
Pepera, the Act of Free Choice is unlawful and must be handed back. A referendum should be held as soon as possible. International Parliamentarians for West Papua, the IPWP, and International Lawyers for West Papua, the ILWP, together with the Vanuatu government should facilitate efforts to challenge the legal and political status of West Papua at the UN. And the KNPB wants to mediate the referendum by the people.
‘This is the most democratic way forward,’ he said, ‘as the way leading to independence. The idea to hold a referendum came from the Majelis Rakyat Papua, the Papuan People’s Council.’
He said that the referendum is the middle way towards resolving the West Papua conflict. The pepera occurred in the 1960s, with a huge amount of manipulation, violating basic international standards.
At the present moment, this matter is before the international community, a move to convince the UN to understand the illegality of Papua’s status as part of the Indonesian republic, NKRI. The IPWP and the ILWP were set up to press for these issues to be taken to the UN, and its members have been lobbying governments in their respective countries.
The process has been promoted by the Vanuatu parliament and government which have agreed to take the issue to the UN, namely to the International Court of Justice, and seek an opinion about the political status of West Papua. Similar pressure is under way by the governments of the PNG and the UK. [Comment: There is little evidence at the moment that this statement is true.]
The process needs to be supported by the mass of the Papuan people, solidly demanding a referendum. The international community is beginning to underrstand what the Papuan people want while Jakarta is closing its eyes and doing nothing to seek a solution, even though thousands of people have demonstrated in support of the decisions of the MRP.
Papuans need to recognise that Indonesia is a colonial power which cannot be expected to find a solution by means of a referendum.
On 2 August, a campaign will begin to point out that the pepera took place at a time of brutal military repression in Papua. This will be the moment when the Papaun people’s rejection of pepera will become part of a national campaign throughout the territory of West Papua.
